The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication

Hyunyi Cho, Torsten Reimer, Katherine A. McComas

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781483323282
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

In this comprehensive, state-of-the-art overview of risk communication, the field's leading experts summarize theory, current research, and practice in a range of disciplines and describe effective communication approaches for risk situations in diverse contexts, such as health, environment, science, technology, and crisis. Offering practical insights, the contributors consider risk communication in all contexts and applications—interpersonal, organizational, and societal—offering a wider view of risk communication than other volumes. Importantly, the handbook emphasizes the communication side of risk communication, providing integrative knowledge about the models, audiences, messages, and the media and channels necessary for effective risk communication that enables informed judgments and actions regarding risk. Editors Hyunyi Cho, Torsten Reimer, and Katherine McComas have significantly contributed to the field of risk communication with this important reference work—a must-have for students, scholars, and risk and crisis communication professionals.

Part I Foundations of Risk Communication

Section 1 Risk Perceptions of Individuals

Chapter 1 Risk Perception

Nicolai Bodemer

Wolfgang Gaissmaier

Introduction

Natural hazards, health hazards, terrorist attacks, new technologies, transportation—all of them represent risks in our life. We face some of these risks daily, others rarely, if ever. Some risks constitute a threat to individuals, some to the entire society. We overestimate some risks, while underestimating others. Some risks trigger a strong emotional response, others are perceived more “cold” and rational.

In this chapter, we start with a definition of the concept of risk and how it differs from the concept of uncertainty. We then outline major theories, models, and mediators that influence our perception of risk. Although the models stem from different research programs, highlight different mechanisms, and are often discussed in isolation from each other, they serve as psychological explanations for how we perceive risks in our daily life.

Defining Risk and Risk Perception

Risk is a highly interdisciplinary concept and its measurement differs across and even within disciplines. For instance, in a health context, risk can refer to the number of fatalities, which can be measured through the probability of death, expected life-years lost, deaths per person exposed, or total deaths (Fischhoff, 2009, p. 943). More generally, most definitions of risk have in common that risk comprises two factors: (1) the probability of harm and (2) the magnitude of harm, where harm refers to threats to humans and things they value (Hohenemser, Kates, & Slovic, 1985). In this sense, risks are measureable and risky situations are conditions in which outcomes (i.e., the harm) and probabilities are known. For instance, one can access the risk of losing in the casino, the risk of an adverse event of a specific treatment, or the risk of a car accident for a given population. Risky situations have to be distinguished from uncertain situations that are conditions in which either both, the outcomes and probabilities, or at least the probabilities are unknown (see Meder, Le Lec, & Osman, 2013). This distinction goes back to Knight (1921) who defined uncertainty as immeasurable in contrast to measureable risks. However, more recent approaches broaden the definition of uncertainty as they consider probabilistic parameters such as standard deviations, expert confidence ratings, or ranges as (quantifiable) indicators of uncertainty (e.g., Politi, Han, & Col, 2007). Throughout this chapter, we mainly refer to risks, that is, situations in which outcomes and probabilities are measureable. Furthermore, when talking about uncertainty, we mean that probabilities are not measureable, and we use the term ambiguity to designate situations in which probabilistic parameters are used to quantify uncertainty of risk estimates.

Risk perception refers to the “subjective assessment of the probability of a specified type of accident happening and how concerned we are with the consequences” (Sjöberg, Moen, & Rundmo, 2004, p. 8z). Pidgeon, Hood, Jones, Turner, and Gibson (1992) defined risk perception as “people's beliefs, attitudes, judgments and feelings, as well as the wider social or cultural values and dispositions that people adopt, towards hazards and their benefits” (p. 89) and thereby stressed that risk perception is not simply an individual process but has to be understood against the societal and cultural background (see also Kasperson, Kasperson, Pidgeon, & Slovic, 2003).

Furthermore, evaluating a risk from different perspectives has different implications for the evaluation of such a risk, as well as consequences for behavior. Imagine a woman who knows that of 100,000 women like her, 15 will have cervical cancer. She might decide not to participate in prevention, such as screening with a pap smear (a test to identify early stages of cervical dysplasia), because her baseline risk is rather low. Now imagine a health policy maker: Pap smear screening reduces the annual incidence of cervical cancer in Germany by a total 10,400 women. In this case, a national program to implement pap smear screening might be appreciated (example from Neumeyer-Gromen, Bodemer, Müller, & Gigerenzer, 2011). Thus, depending on whether a policymaker or an individual layperson decides about the screening, the benefit will be evaluated differently.

Social and Cultural Components of Risk Perception

Although the focus of this chapter is on risk perceptions of individuals, it is important to remember that risk perception always takes place in a social and cultural context (see Part I, Section 2). The social amplification of risk framework is an integrative model of risk perception that is grounded on the assumption that “risk … is not only an experience of physical harm but the result of processes by which groups and individuals learn to acquire or create interpretations of risk” (Kasperson et al., 2003, p. 13). Hence, risk perception has to be understood as a communication process along a chain from the sender to the receiver, with different stations in between that may amplify or attenuate risks. Such stations can be social (e.g., news media), individual (e.g., attention filter), or institutional (e.g., political and social actions).

The way we perceive and react to risks is further shaped by our values. In their cultural theory of risk, Douglas and Wildavsky (1983) distinguished between different cultural world-views. The major dimensions are individualism (e.g., defending individual freedom) versus communitarian (e.g., supporting collective action) and hierarchical (e.g., leaving important decisions to experts) versus egalitarian (e.g., striving for equality). For instance, people with hierarchical–individualist worldviews value markets and co...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Publisher Note
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: Explicating Communication in Risk Communication
• Part I Foundations of Risk Communication
• Section 1 Risk Perceptions of Individuals
• Chapter 1 Risk Perception
• Chapter 2 The Challenge of the Description–Experience Gap to the Communication of Risks
• Chapter 3 The Feeling of Risk: Implications for Risk Perception and Communication
• Section 2 Risk as Social Construction
• Chapter 4 Social Construction of Risk
• Chapter 5 The Role of News Media in the Social Amplification of Risk
• Chapter 6 Rhetoric of Risk
• Part II Components of Risk Communication
• Section 3 Models of Risk Communication
• Chapter 7 Risk Information Seeking and Processing Model
• Chapter 8 The Societal Risk Reduction Motivation Model
• Section 4 Audiences of Risk Communication
• Chapter 9 The Role of Numeracy in Risk Communication
• Chapter 10 Edgework and Risk Communication
• Section 5 Risk Communication Messages
• Chapter 11 Numeric Communication of Risk
• Chapter 12 Narrative Communication of Risk: Toward Balancing Accuracy and Acceptance
• Chapter 13 Visual Messaging and Risk Communication
• Section 6 Risk Communication and the Media
• Chapter 14 Media Portrayal of Risk: The Social Production of News
• Chapter 15 Framing, the Media, and Risk Communication in Policy Debates
• Chapter 16 Social Media and Risk Communication
• Part III Contexts of Risk Communication
• Section 7 Interpersonal Contexts of Risk Communication
• Chapter 17 Risk Communication in Provider–Patient Interactions
• Chapter 18 Informed Consent
• Section 8 Organizational Contexts of Risk Communication
• Chapter 19 Risk Communication in Groups
• Chapter 20 Crisis Communication
• Section 9 Risk Communication in the Public Sphere
• Chapter 21 Social Movements and Risk Communication
• Chapter 22 Public Engagement in Risk-Related Decision Making
• Glossary
• Author Index
• Index
• About the Editors
• About the Contributors